Feyerabend and Scientific Anarchy

Question 1

Briefly explain the following two major ideas in Fayerabend’s view: (a) “Anything goes” (or historical argument), and (b) Free marketplace of ideas (or philosophical argument.)

Answer 1

“Anything goes”:
-science has no method
-historical argument of Galileo
-Galileo suggested the use of a telescope to observe the planets, people were not accepting of Galileo’s idea, they argued that the telescope is not reliable because we cannot compare the observations that it produces with observations from the naked eye.
-For example, there is no way for us to observe the moon up close with our naked eye, so we can’t know if the images the telescope creates are accurate to reality. People wanted Galileo to prove that the telescope is reliable, but he had no answer, he just wanted people to accept it.
-If he was using the scientific method, Galileo should have abandoned his theory because he had no proof.
-Therefore, it is a myth that Galileo used the scientific method. This means that science as a rational universal objective entity does not exist, so in science, anything goes.

Free marketplace of ideas:
-explains the need for creativity
-liberty is important, therefore the removal of obstacles is necessary so one can exercise their will without anything blocking it (negative liberty)
-most valuable thing to human beings is creativity, most important method for growth of knowledge is free market of ideas, where everyone can express their ideas no matter how wild or crazy.
-This enriches the market of ideas.
-all ideas are equally valuable, but through competition some of them become more popular/prominent.
-if you want science to flourish, you need to guarantee the freedom of thought, and freedom from obstacles. Even if an idea is false, people can criticize it to understand why it’s false. -Modern science is too institutionalized, it requires that you follow fundamentals which can’t be questioned.
-To Fayerabend, it is good that science as a rational universal objective entity does not exist, because it allows for creativity.

Question 2

Discuss the following two objections to Fayerabend’s view: (a) the theoretical problem; and (b) the practical problem.

Answer 2

Theoretical Problem:
-If we have no ground to prefer one idea over another, then what is the point of having the free market of ideas?
-In competition, some ideas will be eliminated or forgotten, but if there is no reasonable way to pick one theory over another, then there is no way for an idea to be taken off the table.
-This would lead to the accumulation of an ever-increasing range of scientific ideas being discussed in every field.
-If there is no rule of rejection, then theories are chosen by taste or power, which is problematic.

Practical Problem:
- If we assume it is true that there’s no ground to prefer one idea over another, and we want to build a bridge, we would choose an engineer to do the job over someone who is doing voodoo. -We would obviously want to rely on engineers who studied in engineering schools and learned about the various building materials and how they resist pressures in order to build a safe and functional bridge.
-If we choose science in this scenario, then how can we say that there’s no ground to prefer one idea over another?
-Feyerabend doesn’t have an answer.